tv Today in Washington CSPAN April 12, 2011 6:00am-7:00am EDT
needed to and not what you think you can get the omb to agree to. or we can get the house or ourselves to agree to, but we need to know that. i also need to know that if we do not spend the money now, when will we spend it? will it ultimately cost us more? i think we have been around the track on some of these things. either they grow and become a boondoggle. i am concerned that if we do not do the right thing now and that it will cost us more in the future. we really do need your wise counsel on this. we think the president's support of science. -- we thank the president's support. senator? >> i will defer and go after.
>> senator cochran? >> madame chair, thank you very much for the leadership of our subcommittee and working in concert with our other committee members. mr. administrator, we appreciate your cooperation with our committee in your presentation today. despite some uncertainties about the fiscal year 2011 budget, i am hopeful that we can stay on track to meet the goal of developing the heavy lift capacity for operation by 2016. i am hopeful that is a 130 ton capacity. i know that your advice is important in keeping us on track in terms of taking the right steps with the funding of those activities that will help us reach that goal. we would to be sure we have ample rocket testing results and an infrastructure to support
this capability. we know that safety, confidence , natural interests -- national interests are all goals that we share. we know you are on the same team and we appreciate your leadership. you mention in your written testimony about the investment importance for a 21st century launch complex. this strikes me as a way to describe what we have in the nasa facilities in mississippi- louisiana area which have become so important to the launch infrastructure. do you have enough funding requested in this budget request to ensure that we meet the updates to keep the schedule that is in place for fiscal year 2011 and 12 to
improve the rocket propulsion testing infrastructure? >> as we have discussed, the 2012 budget will support this continued development of our testing capabilities at stennis. we went to complete the testing of the 8-3. as you are probably well aware, stennis has become rejuvenated and reinvigorated. we have had three tests of the a j-26 this year which is the rocket produced by arrow jump form orbital sciences. we have a test supposedly going on today and when we get the 83 test done, we will test a bigger and more advanced engines. >> what are your views toward using existing rassa infrastructure with regards to testing commercial launch vehicles? >> we have demonstrated our
capability to do that. the first time we tested an engine at stennis was the aj-26. it was a ukrainian rocket that had been modified for domestic production and also a rocket we are currently talking to erakat and it has the potential -- talking to aerojet. >> do future plans involve subsidizing commercially on the testing infrastructure elements? >> i do not use the term "subsidizing." we provide the test facility. that is what stennis is. it is for the united states and we want to get everyone to come there to do their tests. we will make sure that we are competitive in terms of cost, we will take all comers. >> thank you. thank you, madame chairwoman.
>> senator brown? >> thank you, madame chair. good to see. the previous administration declared 10 help these centers and lathes responsibilities for each. when we spoke prior to your confirmation, you assured me the policy was no longer needed because tell -- nasa had 10 help the centers. we were promised the etdd program with the 2012 budget request. we are giving money only been told that a significant portion will be at glenn. nasa has a history of allowing the centers to fight among themselves and not a day goes by where i hear if nasa glenn will be getting a mission. instead of collaboration between and among centers, they want to
encourage the competition. i have seen what happens when congress provides nasa latitude to shift funding. two questions on this issue. do you have a serious commitment to the goals of the previous policy of 10 healthy centers and the people who work there? second, how will you work with congress to detail a more specific plan for the 10 health centers? >> i have a very serious commitment to nine or 10 functioning, efficient centers -- nine and the propulsion lab. help the is a relative term. this -- because of the fiscal constraints we are all under, the centers are stressed. you talk about h.r. 1, for example. a change like that would have a dramatic effect on a center. i have the best center directors in the world.
i have the best work force in the world and we are doing everything we can to make sure that we balance the work across the 10 at nasa centers. we want to make sure that we of a balanced portfolio in the agency. we want vibrate involvement in technology development, science, and human space flight. what we are trying to do, which is different than the way it was before, is that i am not asking every center to be capable of participating in every single thing we do. i want to find out what their sweet spot is and let them do that. the center directors enjoy that and the members of the work force enjoy that. i am committed to making sure that all of our centers say as strong as they can. >> and i can be assured that the work will be at glenn regardless of where the office of the chief of technology is located? >> the answer is yes. >> they do not necessarily believe that. >> i know the center director
does. he understands, and as he has probably told you before, he is not worried about having titles, but he is interested in having contracts and the work. the program management office at a center does not mean that the center is going to handle the bulk of the work in the program. it just means that is with the focus of the oversight will be. gleenn is where much of the work will be done. glenn will make out well. >> let me shift to an issue we have spoken about many times. i would like you to detail the selection of the shuttle and the process of nasa overtook in deciding where the retiring shuttles would be exhibited. i never heard you, your top assistants, the white house, or anyone else, talk about this commission that supposedly was put together four years ago that
will apparently decided the disposition with the nasa authorization law that set out guidelines and the world that the commission is planning. can you explain, won a, who is going to decide? >> commission on deciding where the orders go? >> yes. >> if there is such a thing, i do not know about it. i will make the decision this afternoon. if i need to consult with them, someone should tell me quickly. >> we make that decision based on the last person you talk to? -- will you make that decision based on the last person you talk to? >> no, sir. >> "yes, sir" would have been preferable. >> for once, i have no dog in this fight. >> said the decision is yours and there is no statutory commission?
>> and not to my knowledge. i have made an effort to keep people, not the president, but people close to the president informed of the process we are falling. i have made an attempt to keep the staff here in the house and senate and the process that we were following and we offered to brief people on the process. we established, i think, 10 criteria for consideration. we had a 29 applicants for an order. all of them met the criteria in varying degrees. what i will base my decision this afternoon is based upon points that were assigned to the degree to which they met the criteria. it has nothing to do with where it is or anything, but just how they fell out in the matrix of criterium and the points awarded for it. there will be 25 people who will not be happy. four will be really happy.
>> the three shuttles that will been sent to these three locations, are you also deciding on the enterprise, the one that has never flown or only on the three that will have a flown in? >> the decision is being made on the distribution of all four orbiters. the smithsonian is in competition with everyone else. i have four orbiters to dispose of. i know i am being picky, but all of them have a fun. enterprise was the first or better in the conducted on the approach and landing tests. it flew 3 times and had challenging things happened to it. it is a vehicle in and of itself in terms of being a pioneer. those four will be distributed around the country to the four places. >> has the enterprise been
promised or is owned, by some definition, by the smithsonian? >> the smithsonian is in the recipient of all artifacts from space flight. we are working with the smithsonian and my committee to determine how we go about that. i will make that announcement tomorrow at 1:00 p.m. >> can i continue for two minutes, madam chair? this matters a lot to dayton, ohio. if those -- if one of those three that has been defined as having a mission, going up, and the enterprise is defined as less so, generally, if one of them goes to the smithsonian, does that mean the enterprise will go somewhere else? >> if one of them ends up at the smithsonian, they only get one. i will take possession of an enterprise and it will be up to nasa to determine where the
enterprise does. >> if one of these three goes to the smithsonian, can you make a decision tomorrow? you will decide where some go the consolation prize, some call it much more than that, make that decision then? >> i make the decision between when i leave this session and when i announce it tomorrow where all four space shuttle orbiters are going. when i make the announcement marked it will be very specific. it will cite the order and its destination. -- the orbiter and it's destination. this has been as pure as i can make it and free of political involvement. i can say that until i am live in the face, but there will always be someone who has the opinion that it was not the case. the team that i put together
before i became the administrator has done an incredible job over the last couple of years and i would just hate to see at their word being castigated by someone who had undue influence. >> date now ohio is within one day of the -- >> i know theat very well. >> the only two prominent people i know are not from ohio are nelson mandela and mother teresa. senator hutchison? >> the nasa authorization bill allows nasa to modify any contract from the constellation program and it seems that a ryan would be the perfect candidate for such action. -- orion would be the candidate.
you would use the expertise that we have already invested to go to the next generation of vehicles. the president himself brought back orion last year. your staff and managers of green -- agree orion is the vehicle and falls within the scope of the law. yet, it does not seem the contract modifications are happening. do you intend to modify the current launch vehicle as directed in thte law? or will this be strong out so it cannot be revived? >> there may be no requirement for a modification to orion. it was designed as a deep space
exploration vehicle. the basic information that we have the today says that the scope of the orion contract, the existing contract, as a deep space exploration vehicle, easily matches the scope of what the column of the purpose crew vehicle. it may come down to the fact that the scope matches so well that there is no need to modify the contract. in any of the contracts that we have today, we cannot pay the amount of money that was contracted in number of years ago. there will be negotiations among us and all of our contractors because we have to get costs down. we may have to descope the vehicle. it s the design reference. i do not care what the name of
it is. >> let me ask you this. are you taking the previous contract for the constellation, which is no longer, and modifying those so that we get the next generation, the orion, both launched and capsule? >> that is our hope. we have had the lawyers and procurement people looking at mapping the scope of the existing contracts to what it is we want to do for a ball. heavy lift vehicle and a multipurpose crew vehicle. senator cochran mentioned a home 130 ton vehicle and that is-- mentioned a 130 metric ton vehicle and that is what we judge is needed for deep space exploration. it will be an evolving program. the first vehicle may only be 70
metric tons, but eventually it will be 130 metric tons. and >> the budget request for the two. dollar billion, which is level until 2016-- the budget request for the $2.8 billion, which is level, are you telling us you are transporting that in a timely manner so it will be done in a timely way even with the flat budget you request? >> we are using the expertise and assets of the constellation program. the vehicle orion is already in testing for a multi-purpose crew. lockheed martin under the constellation contract, which i am not allowed to terminate, because the constellation program, which still exists, i
told them that we should focus on putting our money on technology and assets that could move forward to deep space exploration systems. that is what we are doing. we are not making much progress on a heavy lift vehicle right now because it is not clear that the aries configuration is one you want to go with. the design vehicle for a space launch system is not been -- not the aries system. there will be some modification needed to go to a shuttle- derived system. >> you say you are not able to cancel orion, but the authorization bill took the place of any previous supplementals or appropriations.
the law is the authorization bill. are you saying that you believe they were fully utilizing the previous consolation contracts for the next generation vehicle and that we are not wasting money pursuing something that is now obsolete but that you are expeditiously using that money for the orion vehicle? >> we are complying with the authorization act. i am out of my league, so i will ask your staff and my people. my understanding is that i am still governed by the 2010 appropriations law which says i cannot cancel. i can do no action, taken action to cancel the constellation program or to stop any expenditures on the program. what i did though was i said we
wanted to spend the taxpayers' money very prudently. in some cases, we stopped doing things that were in the constellation program because we knew they were not going anywhere. there were things that have not begun yet and contract have not even started. i said, "okay. let's not start them let's just stop right there." >> let me jump in. senator hutchison, they are right. the authorization you and senator nelson did did not remove the prohibition on the constellation. however, i think if we all just sit tight and think of what we will be looking at as of this d.r. moves forward -- as teh c.r. moves forward.
your questions are excellent. >> they can modify and use common sense to know that the authorization bill takes the place of the original 2010 supplement. you are going to get more help. our concern is that you had not been using the capabilities that you had for modification to stop obsolete things but continue using the same technology, experience, and people moving forward towards orion. >> i have directed that we spend money for things useful to the exploration system going forward. you had a report that said we were wasting funds by using money on obsolete constellation
contracts. that is not the case. we took issue with the report. we submitted our own report to identify the areas where we were doing exactly what he said. we are spending money on the o'brien vehicle -- orion vehicle. we are spending money on doing some things from the o'brien -- orion -- constellation program that look like they will match up well to a space launch system. we're trying not to spend money on things that will not go forward. we're not wasting the taxpayer'' money. >> that would be our hope. we have worked with your staff and the gao to completely clarified going forward after this next continuing resolution that you will have complete freedom to follow the orion
pursuit in the 2010 law passed for authorization. i do have another question. i know other people -- we can have a second round. >> ask that question and then we can pick up. >> i want to go back to the law passed in 2010 on the orbiter vehicle. senator brown suggested the last person you talked to might be the person you listen to -- i am kidding. you said the criteria should have priority consideration given to eligible applicants that meet the other conditions. they would be those that have the best potential value for the public. they would advance educational opportunities in science, engineering, mathematics and
with a historical relationship with either the launch, flight operations, or processing of the space shuttle orbiters or retrieval or significant contributions to human space flight. if you go back to the priority consideration, it seems to me it would be difficult to leave out both houston and florida. i know you are getting ready to make the decision. i think you have acknowledged that when people think of our space shuttle, they think of mission control in houston. they think of the astronauts training in houston. they think of the tape where we want. i want to ask you how much is
the historical relationship with the flight operations launche, etc., weighing in on the factors in your decision? >> the people who made the recommendations to me did not include the prior authorization from the law. i was aware of it. i think you will find when the announcement is made that every biter has aving an orde connection to human space flight. everyone has a historical connection to the space shuttle. >> the priority of the law would prevail. correct? >> yes. we will comply fully with the law. >> mr. administrator, i want to
come back to senator hutchison's questions about the orion constellation, etc. some time this week, we will pass the final continuing resolution for this year. what i am going to suggest is that your staff review the legislation and the issues ison.d by senator hutcheso back and brief us on where we are on the topics of we are all aware. we want to make sure that we all
understand the same thing. then we can identify if any other further clarification is needed. does this sound like a good way to go? i think there is confusion between the authorization, what you are mandated to do, and what we'vmaybe some activities we do. >> i think as much input as we can get and as much as we can work together, absolutely. i believe so much of our goal was a balanced approach for manned space flight and that we would have the commercial and nasa experience working hand-in- hand on a dual track for the
development of the next generation of vehicles. that is what i am trying to achieve. i hope that is what you are trying to achieve. that is what we're trying to do continuing resolution and the follow on budget. >> the policy goals we have agreed upon through the authorization. the stewardship of federal funds is something we're all committed to. we are in an atmosphere of making every dollar count. we want all talent to count. i was so pleased in your comments and the opening statement when you acknowledged the incredible talent at nasa. a lot of people put a lot of hard work into that. we do not want to throw out the ideas and what we can benefit
from. we do not want to waste money. we are all obsessed with jobs, mr. administrator. as the shuttle winds down, people were deeply concerned in florida. people at all the centers are very worried about jobs. we're looking at how to continued innovation with jobs of the future. i think every member here is concerned about jobs today. we need to talk about that. i want to come back to the frugal government and making dollars account. i know the gao has identified nasa contract management -- they have nasa on the high-risk list. in the annual review of large- scale nasa projects from the gao found that development costs for
the 16 projects that have entered major development had grown nearly 15%. that is not even with the telescope issue. g.a.o. has also told the subcommittee that are encouraged by nasa's corrective action plan. you are on the high risk list. gao says you are making progress. what are you doing to make sure that nasa contract management is implementing the gao recommendations? should we be moving away from cost plus contract into fixed price contract in? is that just a gimmick? how do you get off of the gao high-risk list?
what are you doing so we feel confident about this? also, do you have thoughts on the new world order and contracting? >> in managing expectations, i doubt that nasa will ever be off the high risk list. everything we do is higher risk. we do dangerous and risky things. we take big challenges that nobody else can do. unfortunately, we do one-of-a- kind type programs. we do things that have never been done before. being on the high-risk list, i can still make my program management better. we have established key decision points in every program we do. those are milestones that they have to take an assessment of on how we are meeting our scheduled goals. we look at life cycle targets. at the outset of a program, we establish how much we think it
will cost to design and build a system and how much it will cost to operate the system. when we bring you an estimate for a system today, it is a life cycle cost estimate. we instituted something called the joint confidence levels where we look at cost and schedule. this came about in 2009. we have two examples. both of them will fly before the end of this calendar year. they are on target in every respect. they went through the jcl process. we're confident that we will deliver. we use independent assessments. that is what we're doing now. we train our program and project managers. we put them through a rigorous training course that they have to finish.
one of the things it talks about is discipline. if they are managing a science project, they learn to say no when someone says it would be a good idea to add one more experiment or instrument. we have some things we're going to do away with that do not meet the smell test in this time. >> it to the gao live in yellow lights seriously. what about moving away from cost plus contracts to fixed-price contracts? i am not saying i advocate that. i am interested in your views. >> we would always prefer to have a fixed price contract. the government signs a contract up front and follows its commitment to pay the contractor
as it meets milestones. because we do one-of-a-kind things, sometimes when we are in the development phase, a fixed price contract may not be the most prudent thing to do. we may need a cost plus contract until we get through the uncertain part of the cycle. you will go through multiple types of contracts over the life of a program while it is being developed. you move from a cost plus contract during development to a fixed price contract in the final phases of production. >> today we will not go into this. we are looking at contracting and acquisition and every one of the agency's in our subcommittee. it is not because we will break new ground. it goes to authorization and working with the executive branch. ing as we know it is
going to be reviewed. we signed contracts for things that nobody else does. the fact is it often takes five to seven years to develop. our mission changes or gifts altered. politics changes. technology changes. ck for aare in a tra particular weight and cost. i am not sure what is the best way to go. i do believe lessons have been learned in defense with secretary gates and others. they're not all applicable. we need to be able to look at it. that is not for today. the cr we need to get a
on the web. that's close out this year's appropriations and get a good direction on 2012. did you have any of the questions? >> i do not. >> senator hutchison, the you have any other questions? >> i have questions to submit for the record. i do not need to ask them here. they are general questions i would like to ask you to respond to. i will give them to the chairman. >> i have another couple of questions. there was a study of u.s. satellites that found that fewer than 10% of spacecraft comply with the military standards suffered failures. almost 2/3 fail. only half of the qualification
tests were performed. in 2009, a nasa satellite was lost. a month ago, another nasa satellite was lost. the loss of these two my concern is first for the safety of our astronauts and for the successful launch of supplies and critical hardware to orbit. what type of full-scale, environmental testing is nasa going to require the commercial companies to achieve to get certification for space flight? how are we going to qualify our own vehicles? >> we are in the process of developing human ratings standards. we have a series of 1000
documents that will deal with what a contractor has to do to qualify to carry either cargo or crew members. my number one objective is the safety of our crews. we will not certify an industrial partner to carry a crew unless we're satisfied they have met all the criteria on human ratings standards and all of our safety requirements. almost all the vehicles go through thermal vacuum testing, vibration testing, radiation testing to make sure they are radiation hardened and the like. any test that would have been recovered or will be required, my multi-purpose critical, a commercial vendor will have to pass the same test or
demonstrate they have passed a we puttest before astronauts on. >> what role do you envision? >> it depends on the vehicle or the capability of the developer and industry partner to find another facility. ray lugo is filling out to industry and advertising the cap abilities -- capabilities we have. patrick sherman is doing that. we are actively going out to industry and saying that we have the best facilities in the world. please use our facilities. i envision we may have some contractors wanting to bring their vehicles through plum brook for testing. it is the best facility nasa
has. i am certain it is better than anything else they can come up with. we're trying to help them with their cost. every facility they do not have to build means more money to their shareholders. we promised we will give them a reasonable price. we do have to get back full value for the taxpayer. we do not have any sales. >> let me ask one more question. nasa has been working on the haut-rhin sa -- orion the ago. the work directly transfers to the space launch system. what way do you plan on using finesse a glance -- nasa's
heritage in these programs? >> i will have ray lugo get in touch with you. any work that glen was doing with orion is the same work they will do with the multipurpose vehicle, no matter what we call it. they are small propulsion. engines andtric india the like. they will continue to be responsible for the same thing's going forward. it is my hope that within the week, we will be able to bring to the staffs a report that my senior management has been receiving incrementally now on the multi-purpose crew vehicle. it is the plan for the plan. it will be on the 21st century are not complex.
we have done incredible work. we have not been standing still. we have been doing this for almost a year. this is was supported making the decision on the design reference vehicles. we're ready to bring that to the committee so that you can get incremental looks at how we are progressing. you can see we're not stalling. we're not wasting time or money. we have a plan. if the plan is sufficiently supported by budget, we will develop the best heavy lift launch system we have ever had and a deep space exploration vehicle that will do the things we have only dreamed about until now. we're going to do that. it is our desire to bring those reports to this committee in increments as we go along. >> mr. administrator, in two weeks, there will be a historic
flight. one of our last shuttles will go into space. we know that captain mike kelly will be leading that effort. we hope that with god's grace and american medical care that congresswoman giffords can see that. we wish them through you godspeed. we hope that nasa continues to do with it does best. good luck to them. may the force be with them. >> i would like to add to that. i am so looking forward to this. it has a very poignant side to it because of commander kelly and his wife who we are all pulling so hard for to be able to come.
also, the spectrometers going up is such a big deal. this is the last major big piece of equipment that will be going. it has enormous potential for the look at dark matter, energy. one of the previous nasa administrators insisted this was the one thing we could do in microgravity it would be so important in the energy field. dr. king is a nobel laureate. we listened to him. his dream is now becoming a reality in this launch. it has so many important historic, significant aspects to it. i am very excited about it as well. i am looking forward to having
that peace. in. -- i am looking forward to having that piece put in. the very last payload lifting is in june. >> we will get it to you soon. may i make one comment? to help people put things into perspective, 134 is an incredibly important mission. it is high profile. it is everything. i wear a bracelet for gabby because she is a personal friend. my number one objective is making sure that our astronauts are safe. with all the high profile and everything, i want to keep all the pressure away from mark kelly. captain mark kelly is one
incredible human being. he is also one incredible professional. he is a person has garnered the respective admiration of his crew and everybody in the astronauts' office. he is focused on flying. he is focused on making sure that his group stays safe and carries out the mission to the best of their ability. my goal is to make sure i facilitate their success in doing that. i will do my best to shield them from everything else that is coming. it is an incredibly high profile mission. we will do nothing any different than we did for 133 or 125 or anything else. if we have a problem, we will not go. i want everybody to understand that there will not be any special anything for 134 other than that it will be incredibly special to have gabby at the launch because it represents the triumph of good over evil. i think it is incredible for the country if she is able to make
it. >> we share your emotions, passion, and hopes and dreams for the mission. if there are no further questions, senators may submit additional questions for the record. we expect a response within 30 days. the subcommittee stands in recess until thursday, april 14, at 10:00 a.m. when we will take the test to many -- testimony of the secretary of commerce. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]
>> president obama on wednesday it will lay out his long-term plan to reduce the but broke budget deficit. this comes after friday's spending bill. more on the president's remarks, live from george washington university on c-span 3 and c-span radio. > this year's student cam competition as students to consider washington, d.c., through their lens. >> i do not think it is a problem for them to stand there. they are not forcing people to give them money. >> i do not really feel bad for
them, because i do not think it is an honest job. if they have no other options, i feel bad for them. it they are doing it because it is easy, then i think it is ridiculous. >> a lot of people to actually need help. there are shelters and places they can sleep. i do not think there are enough of them, but there are places. >> every day while driving to school i pass a stranger near the community mall. each day he wakes up, walks half a mile to his corner and stands in the same place all day. the stranger is familiar to everyone come up but known to no one. is there nothing being done to end this tragedy? nothing being done to help the homeless?
>> found that nearly 6 million very low income households pay more than half of their monthly income for rent or live in severely substandard housing our / . we found that on any given night more than 640,000 men, women, and children are without housing. >> hi, i am the assistant coordinator of the shelter. i will give you a quick tour of the facility. this is our stocking room in here where we have our overflow of the coup that we get out to clients. >> my name is kathy juliano. our food shells is very blessed,
because this community is so supportive. there are food shelves that are really struggling to keep food on the shelf, and we always have to be able to keep up with demand. >> we try to give everyone a week's worth of a grocery once per month. every family of four receive six to eight bags of groceries. >> people in crisis can call 211 and they have a database that is national. we can get a multitude of information. the to be call for help. that is exactly what they should do when they find themselves in a situation where they do not have a job or close to losing their house. >> the shelves are pretty full right now, but if we did not get one more donation, this would be gone in a week.
>> food shelves like this one are put in place to help those just like a stranger i see on the corner, a stranger who was a stranger no more. >> i am brad. i have been homeless now for almost 5.5 years. it is really tough here in minnesota, but there are nice people like even the guy i am doing this documentary for. they say as good as you get, you get twice as good back. i am hoping someday to land a job or do whatever i have to do to survive. the way the economy is, it is tough out here. i do not drink, so it came out here for drugs or alcohol.
i hope it gets better. a lot has changed, except for no work. i have went for companies and asked if i could go outside and pick up cigarette butts for $3 an hour. federal government will not give you a loan or any assistance or anything because i am a male peer yen issue not be labelled to just females with kids. it should be anybody. they should help them for like a month, and if they mess up or and they are using the system, then i can see. they will not even say it straight out, but that is the way it is.
>> although brad made it seem as if the federal government did nothing to assist the homeless, there are many programs out there. >> for the shelters that house families, do they receive federal assistance for this? >> many do. they do not all received federal assistance. the federal government does provide a pretty sizable amount of money, over $2 billion per year just for shelter transitional housing and support of housing -- supportive housing. there are over 40,000 programs to assist thomas people it in the country. >> i spoke to a woman who works for one of these programs. the shelter would have welcomed brad. >> we help the homeless, anything from now till -- mental health to housing.
we have young people 18 years old sleeping down here. they do not go to school, do not do anything. >> the individuals here are grateful for many of the assistance programs here. the one thing the shelter does not provide is employment. this man sold everything had been moved here for a job. soon after, the company closed. >> i have my headphones on, and i just look around. some of these guys are just out of work. [inaudible] this is a good place. this is a good place, man.
>> it is not nice to be doing this, but you have to do what you have to do to survive in minnesota. >> go to studentcam.org to watch the rest of the videos. >> "washington journal" is next. later this morning, a senate panel examines the house and the environmental safety of gas drilling. live coverage from the senate environment and public works committee begins at 10:00 eastern. the house dabbles in at noon eastern. they will work on the 2012 they will work on the 2012 budget